Saturday, October 15, 2011

Photoshopped Mohammed

Over at the Center for the Study of Political Islam, Kenneth Roberts has posted an article about how Muhammad's image is being doctored here in the West. It's certainly worth reading.

*********************************************

Photoshopped Mohammed

by Kenneth Roberts

Photoshopping is slang for the digital editing of photos. In photoshopping, images are edited and manipulated to create an illusion or deception.

Helicopter Shark Mohammed

The ‘Helicopter_Shark’ was a famous example of photo manipulation in which two photographs were digitally combined to give the impression that a shark was leaping from the water to attack a military helicopter. Modern Islamic apologetics go to similar lengths to manipulate the biography of Mohammed even adding elements not in the foundational texts. A typical example of Islamic ‘helicopter shark’ is this story:

There was a lady who threw garbage in the path of the Prophet on a daily basis. One day, she didn‘t do it. The prophet went to inquire about her health, because he thought she might be sick. This lady ended up converting to Islam.

There is no reference provided for the preceding, because it is not Islamic. The actual story is from the life of Abdul Baha, a founder of Baha’iism that has been photoshopped into Mohammed’s biography by modern Muslim apologists.

The real story of a woman who insulted Mohammed is found below with its reference:

A Jewish woman used to insult the Prophet and say bad things about him, so a man strangled her until she died, and the Prophet ruled that no blood money was due in this case. (Abu Dawud 4349)

Glamour Photo Mohammed

In glamour photos, the term "airbrushing" describes the removal of physical imperfections of photo models or the enhancement of their attributes in an attempt to fabricate an image of unrealistic female perfection.

Modern Muslims similarly create an ‘airbrushed’ or ‘photoshopped’ image of Mohammed by leaving out his offensive traits and enhancing any qualities that appeal to our modern concerns for human rights and civil liberties.

Here is an example of ‘airbrushed’ Mohammed found on an Islamic website:

“He (Mohammed) suffered from all but harmed none. He was affectionate and loving towards his friends and forgiving and merciful towards his enemies. He was sincere and honest in his mission; good and fair in his dealings; and just in deciding affairs of friends as well as of enemies. In short, all goodness and excellence have been combined in the person and personality of Hazrat Mohammed”.

However, the unphotoshopped Mohammed is neither affectionate nor merciful:

“Aisha, the Mother of the Faithful, was asked, ‘How did the Messenger of Allah behave?’ She replied, ‘His eye did not weep for anyone.’” Tabari VIII:40

Object Removal

A main aim in photo editing is the removal of unwanted objects in the photo. Before photoshopping, this was done by airbrushing. Stalin routinely airbrushed his enemies out of photographs. The term "airbrushed out" has come to mean rewriting history to pretend something was never there.

Contemporary academics have called the process of removing components from an image object removal. It is considered unethical because it is an intentional misrepresentation of historical facts.

The ‘objects’ modern Islamists want to remove are Mohammed’s …

…authoritarianism
‘It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision.’ Koran 33.36

…megalomania
‘While I was sleeping, the keys to the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.' Bukhari:V4B52N220

…misogyny
"Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it." Kash-shaf (the revealer) of al-Zamkhshari (Vol. 1, p. 525)

…intolerance
"No two religions are to exist in the Arab Peninsula", The Sira, pp. 50, 51

...compulsion
"The apostle of God defeated the people until they entered Islam by hook or by crook." "The Ordinances of Qur’an", Al Shafi, page 50

…supremacism
“Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme.” K. 8:39

…terrorism
“How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them.” K. 7:4

‘Terrorists cannot be Muslims’ or can they?

One of the claims of modern Islamists is that ‘a terrorist cannot be a Muslim’.

Just after 9-11, the late Anwar Awlaki, mentor to notable terrorists, said, "There is no way that the people who did this (9-11) could be Muslim, and if they claim to be Muslim, then they have perverted their religion." Awlaki’s later terrorism proved he did not believe his own definition.

By Awlaki’s definition, many leading Muslims of history are excluded from the religion of Islam:

Osama Bin Laden was not a Muslim when he cast terror into the hearts of Americans on 9-11.

Sayeed Maududi was not a Muslim when he wrote: "Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam." Sayeed Abdul A'la Maududi, Jihad in Islam, p.9

Sultan Mehmet V was also not a Muslim when he signed the Universal Fatwa of 1915 sanctioning the genocide of three million of his Christian subjects.

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), was not a Muslim when he wrote, “the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” (emphasis added)

Tamurlane was not a Muslim when he wrote glowingly of his mass murders: ‘I had crossed the rivers Ganges and Jumna and I had sent many of the abominable infidels to hell, and had purified the land from their foul existence....Thanks to almighty Allah.”

Hajjaj, the governor of Iraq was not a Muslim when he ordered his general Qasim to “behave in such a way that no enemy of the true faith is left in that country”.

Mohammed’s successful general Khalid ibn Walid was not a Muslim when Mohammed sent him to destroy all the pagan temples of the neighboring tribes of Mecca. Khalid reached the Jazima tribe and asked them to say, “We are Muslims”. But they said, “We are Sabians” – whereupon Khalid slaughtered the whole tribe.

By Awlaki’s definition, Mohammed could not be a Muslim either. The Sira (his official biography) is filled with violent acts initiated by Mohammed. In the Sira, Mohammed orders or leads a violent act every six weeks resulting in assassination, plundering, enslavement, rape, genocide, ethnic cleansing and territorial conquest.

The Sira explicitly states that many detractors ran away because of Mohammed’s acts of terrorism. The Sira depicts Mohammed as a successful terrorist. Muslim apologists seldom refer to the Sira…object removal.

The Ethics of Manipulating Mohammed’s Image

In Islam, it is considered moral to manipulate Mohammed’s image to create a favorable impression with kafirs. The moral basis for photoshopping Mohammed’s ‘image’ is called taqiyya.

Taqiyya is sacred concealment for the advancement of Islamic political supremacism. Taqiyya is a form of verbal jihad used to defeat Islam’s opponents by using disinformation. Mohammed used taqiyya frequently in the Sira.

Taqiyya is a doctrine of disinformation endorsed by all branches of Islam. Governments of Islamic countries use taqiyya as a normative policy technique, especially in Shi’ite Iran where taqiyya has greater acceptability.

Taqiyya is basically a kind of object removal.

Our Reaction to Islamic Photoshopping

In light of Islam’s dualistic doctrine of taqiyya, should we ever take at face value the depictions of Mohammed invented by modern apologists of Islam? Or should we rigorously investigate them and do our own research into Islam’s foundational texts to determine whether they have been photoshopped?

Should we not compare the photoshopped versions of Islam with Islam’s canonical writers and spokesmen? Should we not study orthodox authorities of Islam such as Bukhari, Ibn Ishaq, Taymiyyah, Tabari, Nawawi, Ibn Kathir, since they represent Islam’s canonical consensus?

As we saw, Muslim apologists, like the late Anwar Awlaki, use taqiyya to justify misrepresentations of Mohammed’s biography or of the supremacist agenda of jihad, Mohammed’s method.

We need to ask: ‘Has this image of a non-violent Mohammed been photoshopped?’

23 comments:

Toll said...

It's the legend-creating process.

My Two Sense said...

Wow. You're touching on my line of work here. I've used Photoshop professionally for about 15 years now. It's pretty crazy that we use Photoshop and Google as verbs...

Mahdi said...

Well lets see what Mr. Wood has posted today. More cherry picked verses and narrations. More Taqqiya accusations (which the author provides no evidence to support). Right.

I'd love to answer all of this guys allegations by mentioning how the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a soft hearted and generous man, but I'll probably get accused of practicing Taqqiya. Again.

John 8:24 said...

Mahdi said: "I'd love to answer all of this guys allegations by mentioning how the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a soft hearted and generous man"

Mahdi, please don't again show us the photoshopped version of how "soft hearted" and "generous" your prophet was. Isn't that the point of this article? You guys NEVER seem to get it. Rather show why the unphotoshopped Muhammad is not true.

My Two Sense said...

"Photoshopping is slang for the digital editing of photos. In photoshopping, images are edited and manipulated to create an illusion or deception."

How DARE you malign the good name of an Adobe product sir!!! :)

Radical Moderate said...

I once had a Muslim tell me that Mohamed was so great that when he shook someones hand he was never the first to let go. He was really impresssed by this and he asked me
"What would you think of a man who would not let go of your hand?".

Haecceitas said...

"By Awlaki’s definition, Mohammed could not be a Muslim either."

David, perhaps you could collect statements by various whitewashers of Islam about what a "true Muslim" cannot think/do and then apply them to Muhammad in a new Youtube video titled "was Muhammad a true Muslim?".

simple_truth said...

Mahdi said...

"Well lets see what Mr. Wood has posted today. More cherry picked verses and narrations. More Taqqiya accusations (which the author provides no evidence to support). Right."

You should be investigating these claims to see if they are true instead of posting this. I know that Muslims frequently cherry pick things to misrepresent Islam. The best example of this is the idea that Islam is a religion of peace, in which the Muslim doesn't inform the non Muslim that peace is not the same meaning as the non Muslim is thinking of. Peace means the state attained when non Muslims have completely surrendered to Islam, whereby there is no more resistance to Islamic control. I know that Muslims know better if they read the Islamic literature like many of us do on this blog.

"I'd love to answer all of this guys allegations by mentioning how the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a soft hearted and generous man, but I'll probably get accused of practicing Taqqiya. Again."

There is nothing stopping you from answering; but, please do me a favor and don't try to relativize it. I notice a lot that a clear cut passage that reflects negatively is explained away while another clear cut passage that is positive is always taken at face value. Why is that?

Deleting said...

Madhi-do you know what evidence to support is?
Just answer yes or no. Don't waste time posting some long and pointless answer.

The Purple Marquise said...

Hei Mehdi! You still haven't answered my question from the previous thread. So don't get ahead of yourself buddy!

You Muslims always just "LOVE to answer questions" but you usually make a declaration of you opinion and present it as fact, never discuss the evidence presented which totally undermines your declaration, and never never engage with the arguments brought against you by answering them in a rational way. If the question is too hard you usually leave it unanswered, pretend it never happened and run away.

So now I appreciate for you to answer my previous questions before you tackle this one!

The Purple Marquise said...

@ Mehdi: I forgot to add in my previous comment that once you get done answering my previous questions and start tackling this issue at hand don't forget to take John 8:24's advice to heart and instead of bringing some Hadith from here and there to show how nice your Prophet was give it a shot and try to show why all those other Hadith which show him to be a rather unsavory and malicious character are not true!

You see Mahdi, When you order the beheading of 800 people in one day "soft hearted" will go out the window! FOR EVERE! AIN'T GONNA COME BACK no matter what else you do in life!! Except maybe if you repent and atone for your sins and change your ways! But Muhammad never did any of that, so that option is closed to you!

You see, I know logic is not Muslims' forte, but you must understand that actually by showing that he did some nice things here or there you are not proving that he was a good man while there are still plenty of evidence that shows that he did lots of really bad things also.

By quoting good stories about him all you might achieve is to show us that he was not 100% bad, but had some good in him as well and I doubt that any of us in this forum would disagree with that! So don't beat a dead horse!

Everyone know that even the most evil human being in the world has had moments that he has done very good things. But you cannot call a person really noble and good and outstanding if his record is not very close to spotless+ having done some great and extraordinary altruistic deeds. Most definitely you shouldn't call him "The Perfect Man" as you do!

So you have a really tough case to make. You see, when someone is in the court accuse of a crime like murder his lawyer cannot stand up and say: "You see your honor, members of the jury, he did kill Mr. X in broad daylight and we do have fifty people who witnessed the crime and we have also the bloody knife with his finger print all over it. But you see my client also has done a lot of good deeds in his life. Last weekend he helped a blind man cross the streets and just the other day he gave 10 cents to a poor man and he regularly babysits for his sister-in-law! So I think it is pretty unfair for you to sentence him to life imprisonment. Because even though he just did this one premeditated murder he generally is a good guy"

No! You cannot defend him like that! You have to prove that your client didn't kill Mr. X at all and all those evidences and testimonies against him were false too.

Now in the story above the guy killed only once and still his reputation is stained for ever and he will have to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But multiply that a hundred time and you get Muhammad.

So Mahdi, you have the tough task of finding very good, cogent and airtight proofs that those thousands and thousands of really horrific Hadith which show Muhammad doing unbelievably horrific acts of cruelty and injustice are all fake and untrue and show us exactly how those untrue and utterly embarrassing stories made their way into the books written and edited and faithfully followed by his most ardent followers all throughout Islamic history!

We are eagerly waiting for your response. Good luck to you and thank you!

Mahdi said...

@simple_truth, John 8:24, Purple Marquise
It's not that you can just cherry-pick an ayah from the Noble Qu'ran or a Hadith and say "here's something against your Prophet and Religion". Yes, the Qu'ran does speak about fighting the disbelievers, but it's not just picking up an ayah at face value and saying "well tomorrow I'm going to kill my non-Muslim neighbor". You have to understand how the Prophet understood these ayats, how the Muslims understood and interpreted the hadiths and what the scholars of Islam say about them. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was up against some of the most threatening people you could imagine. Since he was a messenger of God, he had a right to fight and kill the people who were against him.

I mention this because the people who are against Islam such as Robert Spencer are the people who want you to believe that Islam gives Muslims the right to kill anybody who isn't a Muslim. They'll then quote an ayah from the Qu'ran which speaks of fighting the disbelievers and say "look here's the verse". This isn't what Islam teaches.

I don't understand. I mean according to the Bible there were Prophets such as Moses who were explicitly ordered by God to kill the idolators for their disobedience. Why do Christians mount an attack against the Prophet (peace be upon him) for fighting disbelievers and then turn a blind eye to biblical Prophets who were doing pretty much the same thing?

The Purple Marquise said...

Mahdi, Mahdi, Mahdi..... Didn't you read what I wrote? The "cherry-picking defense" doesn't work! Especially where there are so many cherries to pick from! You again as a typical Muslim ignored what your opponents already said in response to you first comment and went on to repeat your comment yet another time as if by saying it many many times it will becomes true!

Comparisons with The Bible is out of place. Because first off even if your criticism of Bible was correct still it doesn't exonerate your prophet. It only makes both Islam and Christianity bad.

But as it happens your Bible criticism is totally silly. Neither us nor the Jews don't follow the Sunnah of Joshua or Moses. We were never ordered to do so! Even ancient Jews were only commanded to follow the LAW of Moses, NOT his example! Neither of us follow Hadith collection from Joshua or Moses and try to imitate him in order to go to heaven nor we are told that Joshua or Moses was "the perfect man". We are in no way supposed to imitate their example. What ever they did was a matter of history not doctrine! But Muhammad in Islam is the perfect man and example to follow. Muslims imitate him in mundane little daily thing and his words are law!

The Purple Marquise said...

@Mahdi: You also said: "It's not that you can just cherry-pick an ayah from the Noble Qu'ran or a Hadith and say "here's something against your Prophet and Religion". Yes, the Qu'ran does speak about fighting the disbelievers, but it's not just picking up an ayah at face value and saying "well tomorrow I'm going to kill my non-Muslim neighbor". You have to understand how the Prophet understood these ayats, how the Muslims understood and interpreted the hadiths and what the scholars of Islam say about them. "

Don't make me laugh Mahdi! The correct context for those Ayat are very well manifested in the writings of Tafsir books which David many times amply presented on this blog (you call that cherri-picking too)and 1400 years of constant and relentless and non-stop aggression of Muslims against their neighbors. How else do you think Muslims built an empire stretching from India to Spain within a century? By peace and love?!!

What did the poor Persians of Khalif Omar's time do that they had to be conquered and slaughtered in the millions and have to forcefully convert to Islam or be killed or have their wives and children enslaved or pay the Jizya to the Khalifs in humiliation for several centuries until the Mongols (Yes! The Mongols) liberated them from bondage to the Khalif?!

What threat was Egypt to early Muslims? Go learn history, Mahdi! These violent verses and the example of Muhammad have been used ALWAYS to justify aggression against neighbors as Mr. Spencer and others have pointed out!

The burden of proof is totally on you to show how these violent verses and the example of Muhammad didn't have anything to do with constant acts of cruelty and aggression and discrimination of Muslims against their neighbors because history CLEARLY testifies otherwise.

You just answer one thing? Why did Omar attack Persia (my own country) in 7th century? Why did Muhammad wrote a threatening letter prior to his death to our King Khosrow Parvez to either accept Islam or get ready to fight? What did Khosrow Parvez do against Muhammad and Islam? How were the Zoroastrian Persians ANY danger to him and his religion? Just answer this one Mahdi! Just this one!

And today!!!!!Don't let me start! We hear day in and day out in the news how millions of Muslims use these very same verses and Hadiths to attack, lynch, kill, blow up, subjugate, humiliate, rape and plunder their non-Muslims neighbors literally living down the street or in the next village!

How do we know they are using those verses? BECAUSE THEY SAY THEY DO!!!!!! They quote verses of Quran and Hadith and point to Islamic history to justify their actions and usually are the most violent after coming out of the mosque after Friday "prayers" and hearing a hateful and rabble-rousing sermon from their Imam using these VERY SAME verses and Hadiths!

Then the angry and agitated mob pours out of the mosque and goes on a lynching and arson campaign to terrorize and kill their non-muslim neighbors. How do you explain this phenomenon, Mahdi?

And Mahdi, you and people like you (assuming you sincerely disagree with their interpretation and are not using Taqiyya here) have no way to stop them, because all the theological and scriptural and historical evidence are stacked against you and you have no logical way to compel them to adopt your interpretation.

That is also compounded by the fact that they have plenty of Ayat and Ahadith against wishy-washy Muslims like you who try to be nice to infidels and refuse to wage jihad against them. You are called a Munafeq and should be killed as well! So next Friday they might come after you too!

So if you too are going to be killed for your peaceful interpretations (assuming again that you really mean them) then join forces with us! Why do you need to follow a religion that even if you want to live a peaceful life with your neighbors it orders your fellow co-religionists to kill you?

Fernando said...

Mahdi said: «Since he was a messenger of God, he had a right to fight and kill the people who were against him»...

here we have the proff how «[muhammad]n was a soft hearted and generous man»... I arreste my case... done... finish... caput...

waitte... lets stay here one moment more... so: according to mr. Mahdi, when the qur'an sais "kill, kill, kill, rape, rape, rape" one shoulde try to imagine what those words mentte to muhhamad... well... that's very easy: since muhammad is the inventor off the qur'an, they mean "kill, kill, kill, rape, rape, rape"...

he then saide: «according to the Bible there were Prophets such as Moses who were explicitly ordered by God to kill the idolators for their disobedience»... but is one, Christian or Jew, supposed to follow the example of Moses as muslims are supposed to do with muhhamad? no... nope... nothing soever...

more: is that behaviour of Moses glorified in the Bible?... nope... nothing soever... its eben criticised because he did not grasp thate thats was not a command from G-d rather whate He thought was from G-d...

Mr Madho also said: «[muhammad] was up against some of the most threatening people you could imagine»... really? who? can yoy give us an example off those amaizinglie «threatening people»?... more: do you believe that the way to deal with «threatening people» is to kill them or order them killed?

Mr Madho also said that one should know «how the Muslims understood and interpreted the hadiths and what the scholars of Islam say about them»... so, Mr. Mahdi, are you really willing to go to that path? really?... well: we all know you're not because those corroborate the non-photoshopped version off muhammad...

D335 said...

Let's be politically correct and I propose instead of using the term photo-manipulation, ADOBE should use the term "Taqqiya".

i.e.
"Taqqiya is the application of image editing techniques in order to create an illusion or deception (in contrast to mere enhancement or correction), through analog or digital means.[1]

My Two Sense said...

Mahdi:
"I don't understand. I mean according to the Bible there were Prophets such as Moses who were explicitly ordered by God to kill the idolators for their disobedience. Why do Christians mount an attack against the Prophet (peace be upon him) for fighting disbelievers and then turn a blind eye to biblical Prophets who were doing pretty much the same thing?"

Christians follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ. "Love your neighbor", "love your enemy", "turn the other cheek", "do not cast the first stone", etc... It's not "turning a blind eye" to prophets so much as it is believing in the Gospel.

Mahdi:
"I mention this because the people who are against Islam such as Robert Spencer are the people who want you to believe that Islam gives Muslims the right to kill anybody who isn't a Muslim."

Like or hate Robert Spencer all you want and agree or disagree with him all you want. Unfortunately there are some Muslims that believe that Islam gives Muslims the right to kill anybody who isn't a Muslim.

Unrelated topic:
D335 - I don't think Adobe meant "photoshop" to be used as a verb. Asking a career Adobe user to "photoshop" something would be like asking a famous artist to "paint by number". :)

search 4 truth said...

You know it is amazing how the Muslim mind works. It is absolutely fascinating and scary at the same time. Such delusion. They can never provide evidence to their assertions and presuppositions.


this Chrislam crap is why it is so difficult to reach the indoctrinated mind of a Muslim. They think Mohammed had similar attributes of Jesus, even though he was the polar opposite in every way.

Tabari IX:69 "Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us."

Bukhari:V4B52N270 "Allah's Messenger said, 'Who is ready to kill Ashraf? He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.' Maslama got up saying, 'Would you like me to kill him?' The Prophet proclaimed, 'Yes.' Maslama said, 'Then allow me to lie so that I will be able to deceive him.' Muhammad said, 'You may do so.'"


Tabari VIII:122
Ishaq:515 "The Prophet gave orders concerning Kinanah to Zubayr, saying, 'Torture him until you root out and extract what he has. So Zubayr kindled a fire on Kinanah's chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinanah was near death. Then the Messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him."
I would love the context from a Muslim on these. But of course he did his dawah and lied for Allah. He will just move on. And forget that his taqiyya didnt work and try and defend and do dawah on the next topic. Going through life living a lie!

John 8:24 said...

@The Purple Marquise

Great response! I don't think I could have said it any better. Mahdi, now the ball is in your court.

simple_truth said...

Mahdi said...

"@simple_truth, John 8:24, Purple Marquise
It's not that you can just cherry-pick an ayah from the Noble Qu'ran or a Hadith and say "here's something against your Prophet and Religion". Yes, the Qu'ran does speak about fighting the disbelievers, but it's not just picking up an ayah at face value and saying "well tomorrow I'm going to kill my non-Muslim neighbor". "

What I see is an open ended invitation to do such things wherever and whenever necessary
with support from Mohammad and his teachings. The Quran allows for expediency. A necessity can be made for almost any circumstance. That is the problem. If one Muslim does it, another Muslim can't say that its wrong since there are all kinds of hadith literature that a Muslim can reference that supports his/her action. A more objective person can see this going on all of the time in the Qu'ran when chronology of events are not taken into account when trying to interpret the Qu'ran. Those that emphasize peace use the peaceful verses which most of which came early in Mohammad's presumed prophethood while the more violent and abusive ones came later. The problem with the peaceful minded Muslims is that they are ignoring
Mohammad's final 10 years of presumed prophethood. If they don't ignore, they simply try to relativize or play the blame game and claim that Mohammad's enemies were the fault and it was expedient that they were fought: after all, they were hypocrites and losers. All circumstances can therefore, be seen as an 'us vs them' situation.

"You have to understand how the Prophet understood these ayats, how the Muslims understood and interpreted the hadiths and what the scholars of Islam say about them."

Yes, indeed. But, that is precisely what we have been doing by citing tafsirs and hadiths
which are supposed to come from those who were either companions of Mohammad or part of the early generations closest to him. Mohammad said himself that those who are the best of Muslims were the ones living within the times of the rightly guided caliphs (i.e., the first four). If anyone should understand Mohammad and his examples, it should be those generations. As a general principal, if one wants to understand something, they go to the source or as close to the source as possible since those closest are more likely to know and have accurate information.

"The Prophet (peace be upon him) was up against some of the most threatening people you could imagine."

That is the way that Muslims paint the picture. Did you ever think of what his enemies thought of him as they saw him inflict terror upon them and others who were targeted just because they were disbelievers? What do you do with Surah 9:29-30? These verses were
strictly offensive strikes justified by Mohammad. What about the violent spread of Islam by

Mohammad's first four successors (the rightly guided caliphs). What about Mohammad's letters to neighboring lands that threatened them if they didn't join Islam. What about the attack on the Byzantine Empire? Those lands had no dealings with Arabia.

Even when Mohammad seized control of most of the Arabian peninsula, he still continued to terrorize those small pockets of tribes left. Just before he died, he stated that he wanted all of the Jews driven out of Medina. If anyone was threatening, it was him.

Also consider that when Muslims were a very small minority in Mecca, did the pagans behave like Mohammad? The answer is no; for, they tolerated him up until he started to annoy them by trying to convert their fellow tribesmen. Had they been as ruthless as your prophet,

Mohammad and Islam wouldn't have lasted beyond those first few years.

simple_truth said...

.............continued

"Since he was a messenger of God, he had a right to fight and kill the people who were against him."

That is a very dangerous view of prophethood. Having a title as messenger gives no one such authority. This is not a pattern exercised in the Bible.

What exactly do you mean by 'against him'? Would that mean that if someone didn't like his
message, they got killed? How about if they didn't agree with him? How about if they saw him
as a threat to their lives, property, community, etc.? You Muslims always paint a one-sided
picture of events.

Mohammad was as warlord first and foremost. He used prophethood to justify his sinful actions. What you aren't considering is that Mohammad, himself, is a large part of why he had enemies. He instigated lots of things, especially in the name of Allah.

"I mention this because the people who are against Islam such as Robert Spencer are the people who want you to believe that Islam gives Muslims the right to kill anybody who isn't a Muslim. They'll then quote an ayah from the Qu'ran which speaks of fighting the disbelievers and say "look here's the verse". This isn't what Islam teaches."

That would be incorrect. There are plenty of ayat and hadiths that support aggressive acts against non Muslims. One only needs to exercise them if expedient. If you think that those who are against Islam are somehow cherry picking, then you must condemn yourself and your fellow Muslims who do it purposely to deceive the outsiders.

"I don't understand. I mean according to the Bible there were Prophets such as Moses who were explicitly ordered by God to kill the idolators for their disobedience."

What is the context? The Bible never tells prophets or even individuals to go and kill
others because they don't accept religion or reject prophets the way Islam does. Most of the killing in the Bible is based upon prophecy of earlier judgments against nations--even Israel. In the OT, God judged nations including Israel itself. Where do we find Mohammad and Islam being judged by Allah in a manner like Israel? Blame was never placed on the Ummah.

"Why do Christians mount an attack against the Prophet (peace be upon him) for fighting disbelievers and then turn a blind eye to biblical Prophets who were doing pretty much the same thing?"

Because they aren't the same. When you are trying to compare, you are creating a categorical error. These two things are not the same. Show us where religion becomes the means of killing others. Show us where any prophet was called to make religion of a land and subjugate nonbelievers like with Mohammad and Islam.

Lastly, when you appeal to the Bible as a defense of Islam, you have just admitted to the charges levied against your religion. Your religion must stand on its own merits. Even if the Bible portrayed the most vile humans as being exemplary, that wouldn't make the Qu'ran true. Learn to defend your own position instead of attacking others first as some kind of checkmate. We are not playing checkers here. You don't get to make kings of the pieces.

taomeano said...

Mahdi

said "I'd love to answer all of this guys allegations by mentioning how the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a soft hearted and generous man, but I'll probably get accused of practicing Taqqiya. Again"

Mahdi
Why can't you just accept the truth? Your prophet was a very violent man, no matter how hard you try to soften his image it is not going to work, the truth is the truth. I do not know how you became a moslem either by birth or conversion, but the fact remains that you are following the wrong religion and banking your eternity on a false belief. I plead with you to make an intelligent decision and leave Islam.

Islam will send you straight to hell. I wish I could soften my statement, but I have to be truthful to you so you know what is at stake here.

Have you ever asked yourself why moslems are trying to soften the image of your so called prophet? We christians do not need to do anything to soften the image of Jesus Christ. It is all there for all to see.

One of the most difficult things for me to understand is why intelligent, reasonable, educated people who should know better still blindly follow Islam? If a religion instructed me to lie so that I can deceive people, that is a religion no one should follow. Islam instructs its adherents to lie in order to deceive people, this is so mind-boggling to me.

Mahdi
I challenge you to read the book titled " The Deception of Allah" by Christian Prince. You will be amazed and shocked by the information. Before you dismiss the information in the book, prove that his sources and quotations from the Koran are wrong.

Mahdi
I wish you all the best and I hope you leave that false religion that Islam is and find your way to GOD through JESUS CHRIST.

Ben said...

Some of us could benefit by links to source documents for quotes. At present, I have three Google searches going from this article.

For linking to the Qur'an, hadith & Tafsir, try URLGenerator.exe, which you can find in the Resources for Bloggers page at http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/ I make extensive use of it in my blog posts.